I love Bayes theorem. But it really is just a fancy way of saying ‘Most people believe what fits their prior assumptions, until presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.’
> On Oct 29, 2014, at 3:02 PM, BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical > Centrist Community <[email protected]> wrote: > > But these distinctions are critically important. Let’s assume that the > evidence presented for the EDM is pretty strong, with only a 10 percent > chance of a false positive. For the EDM theorist, the math works out to a 97 > percent chance of an Emerging Democratic Majority. For someone starting from > a position of neutrality, it is a 90 percent chance of an Emerging Democratic > Majority. But for the skeptic, even this overwhelming evidence only moves > him to a position of neutrality: The odds that the EDM is correct are at best > 50-50. > > Most of the online debate overlooks these foundational issues and instead > focuses on the second point: the strength of the demographic evidence. For > the EDM theorist, the evidence is overwhelming that demographics are pointing > toward a Democratic majority. > > Skeptics tend to view the evidence differently. For the skeptic, the > evidence is consistent with a number of theories about what is going on, and > where things will lead. The list of alternative hypotheses is lengthy, but > among the more prominent: > > -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
